The Canadian Supreme court issued a landmark ruling which establishes precedent for the state to intervene into religious divorce matters. The court ordered an orthodox Jewish husband to pay damages to his former wife for reneging on a promise, made in their 1980 civil divorce, to give his wife a religious divorce, called a get.

This decision could help other Canadian Jewish women who are also marginalized by husbands who refuse a religious divorce. Without a get they cannot remarry in the Jewish religion, and subsequently, can have no more children. The decision will also impact other religions as well.

I fully support the reasoning of the Supreme court but as an American, I worry about that line of separation of church and state. How far can a secular state court go in meddling with religious divorce?

In this case, the court claimed it was only penalizing a breach of a contract which related to a religious issue. If the promise for a get was not part of the case, I don't think it would have been proper for the court to enforce the issuance of a religious divorce. It acknowledged that the infringement upon the husband's religious freedom was inconsequential compared to the wife's loss and suffering.

The husband did relent and agreed to the divorce in 1995 but she opted to continue her action for damages. She originally sued for $1,350,000 including loss of consortium. This amount was unjustified and unreasonable. She was awarded $47,500 for the 15-year breach.

Boundaries for court interference into religious affairs have been widened in a democratic country. It remains to be seen if this is a positive development which could be followed elsewhere. I worry about the consequences of court intervention into religion.

Click here for more.